Attorney-General George Savvides on Wednesday questioned whether the Supreme Court should be assigned the responsibility of reviewing decisions taken by future attorneys-general, as has been provided for in a bill to reform the role put forward by the government.

Speaking after the day’s House legal affairs committee meeting, he said that both he and committee members had “raised serious reasons why any act of review … should inevitably be carried out by the Supreme Court”.

“The issue must be resolved through the correct process and at the right level, so as to form a strong and unquestionable system of control for the future,” he said.

The bill foresees the division of the role of the attorney-general into two and the establishment of the position of a director of public prosecutions (DPP), with both the attorney-general and the DPP to have deputies.

The attorney-general will remain as the state’s legal adviser and the head of the legal service, while the DPP and their deputy will undertake the attorney-general’s current responsibilities relating to public prosecutions.

At present, decisions made by the attorney-general of the day cannot be appealed, though the reform bill has set out two different processes for appeals against decisions by the attorney-general and the DPP.

Appeals against decisions made by the attorney-general will be taken directly to the Supreme Court, while appeals against decisions made by the DPP will be subject to a two-step process.

The first step will be the convention of an internal legal service committee of prosecutors, while the second step, if the first step is also appealed, will see the case heard at the Supreme Court.

Savvides was asked on Wednesday whether he feels “vindicated” by the development of the discussion on the planned reforms and said that he believes the day’s discussion was “neither a step backwards nor a step forward”.

He said the legal service maintains “serious constitutional reservations” regarding the planned division of his role, and added that discussions on the matter have “not yet reached a substantive conclusion”.

“Constitutionally, the issue belongs to the legislative power and the wisdom of members of parliament,” he said.

In addition to the new right of appeal and the division of the role of the attorney-general into two, the bill foresees that all four roles – those of the attorney-general, the DPP, and the two assistants – will be limited to a single eight-year term.

All four will be required to retire either at the end of the term or on their 68th birthday, whichever is soonest.

If passed by parliament, the new law will come into force on December 1, 2027, apart from the term limit provision, which will come into force when the constitution is amended to allow it.

Previously, President Nikos Christodoulides had said it is “necessary” to enact the planned reform, saying that the separation of the role of the attorney-general “will strengthen people’s trust in justice, ensure accountability and harmonise our country’s situation with European and international standards”.

On this matter, he said the reform is “consistent with the reports and recommendations of European and international bodies”, referencing the Venice Commission, the European Commission, and the Group of states against corruption (Greco) as examples.

He did, however, say he respects Savvides’ objections to the planned reform.

Savvides had last year said that he maintains “serious reservations” regarding the government’s plans to invoke the “doctrine of necessity” to change the constitution.

The “doctrine of necessity” was borne out of the effective collapse of the bicommunal Republic of Cyprus as constitutionally envisioned in 1963 with the ejection of Turkish Cypriots from their constitutionally mandated positions within the state.

“As the attorney-general today and the defender of legality, the rule of law, and public interest, I consider it my duty, at least at this stage, to point out the constitutional visible risks which may arise in the event that the proposed bills are passed with enormous, insurmountable, I would say, negative consequences in the event of a successful challenge to their constitutionality,” he wrote.